Hope I Made the Right Choice...

[Anderton]

Okay SSSers, give me some advice on something I'm dealing with right now. I received an album to master and first of all, I really dig the music. Even my 15-year-old daughter, who is incredibly picky about music, walked in while I was doing the mastering and said "Who's that? It's great!"

 

Now, here's the problem: The mix was mixed WAY too hot. It's not just maximized, there are distortion issues with running out of headroom. So, it's not as good an album as it could be. I asked for cleaner tracks, but that's not possible.

 

So I did master the tracks, and if I do say so myself, the mastered tracks sound MUCH better than the originals because the EQ is right, the imaging is better, I was able to clean up some of the distortion, etc. The tracks are all "sausaged" (i.e., if you look at them in a digital audio editor, the tracks are so "flat-topped" the track looks like a sausage), but that's life.

 

The musician was extremely happy with the results, and being a nice guy, offered to credit me on the album as mastering engineer. Well, part of me says people will think I sausaged it in the mastering process, and think I likely suck. But, part of me says I'm really proud I was able to take what the artist himself called "that crap I sent you," and make it shine. Besides, I like the music a lot, and wouldn't mind being associated with it. And, I'd mastered a few of his cuts before doing his album, and on the strength of him playing those cuts for other musicians, he got me some more mastering gigs.

 

I told him to go ahead and credit me, but can't help but wonder if that might come back to bite me..."Yeah, I heard an album Anderton mastered, he's a total hypocrite...always bitching about the loudness wars, and then he does the same thing. The music's really good, too bad he messed it up."

[midinut]

I think I may ask you to master my "crap" too. lol

[Cry Logic]

Don't worry Craig, we'll all know you did the right thing.

 

And anyway it's only us older dudes who care about this stuff .

The kids these days seem to prefer their music "sausaged".

 

Can you tell us the name of the Artist & Album so we can have a listen?

[MikeRivers]

I doubt that one self-produced album will ruin your reputation. If it sounds good to you when it left your studio, nobody is going to complain about it.

 

The only projects I've done where I asked that I not be credited are those where it was a struggle getting to the finish line because the music or playing just wasn't good, giving people a legitimate reason for not liking the product.

[Lee Knight]

I hear slammed mastering jobs by the tops in the field. It's not hurting their rep. I think people realize what's going on even if the mastering engineer did it.

 

Nobody's making the assumption that a smashed album is the results of a hack mastering engineer. If anything, they'll chalk it up to the reality of today's practice. (even though this isn't the case here)

[techristian]

When you handed it back, you should have mentioned "Please don't bring back another with distortion like that! Bring it to me before you crank it all the way up."

 

Dan

[Lee Flier]

I doubt that one self-produced album will ruin your reputation.

 

Yeah, this. And what Lee K said too. I think most people who care about these things realize it isn't always the mastering engineer's fault when these things happen. And certainly you have enough non-sausaged jobs to your credit that anybody researching your work would realize it's not your usual M.O.

 

So, particularly if you like the music and the end result turned out well, I don't see any problem with you getting a credit.

 

So the artist realized that the mixes were crap? How come he couldn't do anything about that?

[SomeoneYouKnew]

 

I told him to go ahead and credit me, but can't help but wonder if that might come back to bite me..."Yeah, I heard an album Anderton mastered, he's a total hypocrite...always bitching about the loudness wars, and then he does the same thing. The music's really good, too bad he messed it up."

I won't lie to you, Craig. I think you made the wrong choice, for the reason you mentioned. It isn't likely to damage your credibility. But the potential is there, if someone wants to discredit you.

 

There isn't a clean "win" in a situation like this. It would be unfortunate to miss the opportunity to have your name associated with some great music. But the final product won't show that you did the best you could with what you had to work with. If it sounds overly compressed, it's not obvious that was already in the original tracks. It isn't easy to determine that it didn't occur in the mastering, something your name will be associated with.

 

Faced with the same situation, I would probably tell him to leave my name out of it, this time. No doubt you already impressed upon him the importance of leaving headroom in future recordings he does. Perhaps you'll have a chance to work with him again, and put your name on a superior product.

[blue2blue]

 

Okay SSSers, give me some advice on something I'm dealing with right now. I received an album to master and first of all, I really dig the music. Even my 15-year-old daughter, who is incredibly picky about music, walked in while I was doing the mastering and said "Who's that? It's great!" Now, here's the problem: The mix was mixed WAY too hot. It's not just maximized, there are distortion issues with running out of headroom. So, it's not as good an album as it could be. I asked for cleaner tracks, but that's not possible. So I did master the tracks, and if I do say so myself, the mastered tracks sound MUCH better than the originals because the EQ is right, the imaging is better, I was able to clean up some of the distortion, etc. The tracks are all "sausaged" (i.e., if you look at them in a digital audio editor, the tracks are so "flat-topped" the track looks like a sausage), but that's life. The musician was extremely happy with the results, and being a nice guy, offered to credit me on the album as mastering engineer. Well, part of me says people will think I sausaged it in the mastering process, and think I likely suck. But, part of me says I'm really proud I was able to take what the artist himself called "that crap I sent you," and make it shine. Besides, I like the music a lot, and wouldn't mind being associated with it. And, I'd mastered a few of his cuts before doing his album, and on the strength of him playing those cuts for other musicians, he got me some more mastering gigs. I told him to go ahead and credit me, but can't help but wonder if that might come back to bite me..."Yeah, I heard an album Anderton mastered, he's a total hypocrite...always bitching about the loudness wars, and then he does the same thing. The music's really good, too bad he messed it up."

That's a tough one.

 

Seems like you will be blamed for any 'sins' perceived in the final work if you sign it. One thing -- I can't see any graceful or professional way to distance yourself from the product -- at least not during the commercial life of its primary release.

 

But I honestly think you can take some heart in what Lee says, as well. One self-produced record is not likely to break your rep. And if it should become better known by its success, and that is substantial enough to make it an issue, you'll still be able to fall back on the proof's-in-the-pudding aspect.

[daklander]

The vast majority of those who will hear the CD won't hear the squash and won't open the wave forms to see what's going on.

[Alndln2]

The vast majority of those who will hear the CD won't hear the squash and won't open the wave forms to see what's going on.

If they don't hear that in an obvious way and it sounds good I think I would settle for that and take the credit.

[PermaNoobie]

People that care about the mastering process (and actually look at that credit) will probably be aware of the issue that you are working with source material outside your control, time/budget constraints, etc

 

Hell, Dane Davis did "surf Nazis Must Die", but it was a Troma, I take that into account when looking at hi other work like "The Matrix" .

 

I don't think there's any reason to Smithee the work.

 

If the musician realized there were significant problems in the source material (and it sounds like he does) - have you considered crediting something like "corrective mastering" or "restorative mastering"

[ggm1960]

If someone listens and doesn't like the mastering then they can come here and hold you to account!

 

[Coaster]

i have a number of items that say "mastered by bob ludwig" that are well, crappy sounding.

 

i dont know if bob ludwig made it crappy, or just dealt with what he had. of course, many folks may not be as open minded about the process as myself.

[Ronan Murphy]

Every once in a while I am involved in some project that I think about keeping my name off of, but I always leave my name on for two reasons:

 

1) it would be an insult to the client if I requested to not have my name on something.

 

2) I always have the fear that it will turn into some surprise hit for reasons no one expected and I will have lost a golden opportunity.

[Anderton]

This is all excellent advice. As to Lee's question: "So the artist realized that the mixes were crap? How come he couldn't do anything about that?"

 

First of all, there was a bit of education going on about what a "hot" mix is, and yes, in the future I don't think there will be these issues. Second, I didn't ask but it sounds like the music was cut over a wide-ranging period of time with varying acoustics, EQ, etc. But also, the guy has a signature sound that's very bluesy and distorted, so it also fits with his ethos. The distortion from the hot mix sounds a lot more "right" with his music than it would with, say, the classical music I master.

 

Ultimately, the bottom line for me is I like his songwriting, singing, guitar playing, the arrangements, the attitude, and the variety of material. I don't like how hot it was mixed, but quite a bit of that got mitigated in the mastering. Meanwhile, if I put the CD on, I dig it. So I guess that's the story...

 

And Ronan, I dig what you're saying about being an insult to the client, and this is a super-nice guy who does not merit an insult, even an unintentional one. So that's a factor too. At this point it would be selfish to worry about MY reputation when he has some music he wants to sell. And as others have said, it's by far not the only CD I've mastered...I've probably done over 100 tracks in the past few months, and there are before-and-after examples on the web if anyone really wants to dig deeper.

 

Thanks all for you advice, all very valid points.

[bp]

I go by two names depending on the mastering "style". The second name is descriptive of the louder is better mindset and if that is what the client wants that's fine by me. It's about their vision for their music and no matter which direction they want, I'm happy to help. The two identities help me avoid being known for either philosophy exclusively. It's good to be versatile and not impose something against a client's wishes.

 

For me, having the two does help me identify what the client is after. I use my name for the more dynamic, old school style. Jeff knows the other name I use for the flat-topped loud style.

 

On rare occasions I do turn down work rather than request a LMNO Productions credit.

[Kendrix]

I am reminded of Greg Calabi's talk at AES about mastering the J. Lennon Plastic Ono Band Album.

It sounds very low-fi.

Greg played an alternate version that sounded much "better" technically. However, Lennon chose the personality of the low-fi version.

Would you turn down that credit?

If not, then why turn down this one?

 

Besides "there is no such thing as bad press/publicity".

[ermghoti II]

99.7/100 people will hear the great songs, and not notice the distortion. The rest of them are reading this thread.

[angstwulf]

You're on record here saying what really happened.

 

Why not take it a step further? Maybe get the artist's permission to write an article in EQ or SOS explaining what you did, why and how it changed from bad sausage to good sausage ().

 

Why not go one step further and bring the artist into the article? Interview him. Get his take on what changed from a his perspective as the artist and as a listener. I'm sure he'll appreciate the exposure.

 

We're living in a time where this type of recording is the norm. You can be a purist and try to insulate yourself from the status quo, or you can bitch about it or you can educate the world so that future generations will live in a world where dynamic range means something.

 

Do it for the children!

[Anderton]

You're on record here saying what really happened. Why not take it a step further? Maybe get the artist's permission to write an article in EQ or SOS explaining what you did, why and how it changed from bad sausage to good sausage ( ).

 

Hmm...most of my articles are about "preventive maintenance," i.e., how to do a mix so you don't end up in this situation. I ventured into "salvage job" world when answering a reader question about what the #$^*& do you do when you're given an MP3 to master, and also wrote a Power App on using multiband expansion to restore some semblance of dynamic range. But you're right, an article that takes a more wholistic approach to song salvage would be cool.

[Goobers]

 

I told him to go ahead and credit me, but can't help but wonder if that might come back to bite me..."Yeah, I heard an album Anderton mastered, he's a total hypocrite...always bitching about the loudness wars, and then he does the same thing. The music's really good, too bad he messed it up."

 

 

Two things strike me. You did do the mastering work, so that is your work and you should therefore put your name on it. Otherwise, you should have turned it down.

 

Also, you're everywhere. This is one drop in an ocean of Craig Anderton.

 

So, maybe you're overly concerned given that it's not actually that bad, and your rep is the ocean, not a single raindrop.

[Goobers]

Why not take it a step further? Maybe get the artist's permission to write an article in EQ or SOS explaining what you did, why and how it changed from bad sausage to good sausage ( ).

 

If some ugly hag hired you to pretty up a heinous photo, is it OK to write an article "how I used photoshop to turn an ugly hag into a smoking hottie!"